Understanding Technocracy

8/3/2019 Understanding Technocracy

1/17

UNDERST

Selected writings b

Page 1 of 17

NDING TECHNOCRA

CYBERNATION

the Zeitgeist Movement and the Ven

CYS

us Project.


2/17

Page 2 of 17

UNDERSTANDING TECHNOCRACYS CYBERNATION

Selected writings by the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project.

This document is selected capture on the concept Cybernation to be deployed by the Zeitgeist

Movement and its activist arm the Venus Project. Given the lack of exposure and failure to citeofficial documentation by the technocratic movement at large , it is required to

Resources accessed on 3 January 2012

A Case for Social Cybernation

Source:http://tzmblog.zeitgeistitalia.org/en/blog/tom-skazinski/case-social-cybernation

Submitted by Tom Skazinski, published on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 22:13

Let us ponder and inspect the idea of a socio-economic paradigm shift, and plot a social

direction with the help of social nation. Democracy, a loaded word, has a lot of

connotations and ideologies associated with it; but what does it really mean? And, more

importantly, how does it manifest in our current society?

The ideological purpose of democracy is for everyone to participatefor the governing powerto derive from the people. Unfortunately, when we inspect todays culture and the governing

institutions, this ideological premise is questioned.

Take the various democracy governments around the globe todaythey exist as entities

operated by groups of individuals that people elect to power.

The government needs to balance its budget, grow its GDP, uphold a framework of rules and

laws of the land, and compete in the world marketplace in order to satisfy its interests. You

would assume its interests to be that of serving its citizens collective needs and foster a

healthy environment that creates incentives and motivates individuals to contribute towards

the betterment of the social collective.


3/17

Page 3 of 17

That is the theory behind what our current monetary paradigm system is trying to achieve: if

you satisfy your own needs and desires by earning income, you are contributing to the

betterment of society as a whole.

This is the staple and structure of todays mentality it is why we have jobs, why we have

personal property, it is what the culture promotes, and what we dont question but assume isthe golden rule of how society is to function.

This is the basis for the structure of todays mentality: it is why we have jobs; it is why we have

personal property; it is what the culture promotes; and it is what we dont question, but assume is the

golden rule of how society is to function.

Although this mentality or framework has some positive aspectsit will change: not because

of some prediction or because of a growing enlightenment about alternatives that in theory

would work better; but because simply putour current paradigm is not sustainable.

[]

No longer can our idealistic-democracy-driven government serve its citizens when its

lifeline and existence is threatened by the continuing requirement for sustaining

exponential consumption with no regard to natures limits, no regard to the wellness of

its citizens, no regard to solving problems if these were to disrupt the generation of

profit.

This monetary paradigm is the greatest threat against which our species has ever had tocontended, and will be viewed by future generations as the greatest obstacle we had to

overcome in order to progress and mature as a species.

Would a paradigm shift of the modern socio-economic-democracy ideology towards social

cybernation a rational alternative? Do we even know if its even feasible and sustainable?

As a computer scientist I look at this problem from an informational systems theory

approach, there exists an infinite solution space of frameworks that tackles the issue at hand;

a framework is a series or rules and standards with which we can organize our society. Our

society runs on a massive collection of rules and standards, either assumed, or inferred from

the past, or planned out and enforced by law.

[]

So shouldnt we collectively prioritize that the most influential aspect of our existence and

the long term sustainability of our species be forever improving? and shouldnt we be

continually optimizing this set of rules and standards?

But, in our current society, does the average person even contemplate this? or do we assume

this is the way things are; then, so be it? Im just an individual playing out my life in the

current set or rules and standards; thats the way it is.


4/17

Page 4 of 17

Each of us to varying degrees, likes to pass the responsibility of our actions or our in-actions

to others or to the collective: I was just following orders; No one told me this would

happen; This wasnt my job, or simply I dont care about that. These seem to be the

popular approach.

We wont be able grow out of our past until we realize that the responsibility lies within eachone of us; each one of us is able to make a difference, and collectively we can learn from

each other to become sustainable and accomplish amazing technological progression.

Once we have taken on the responsibility role the question now becomes how do we devise a

new set of rules and standards to create a framework that works? Ive been always fascinated

how nature works, and how low level simplicity results in emergent complexity. Life is no

exception; if we look for inspirations, we can find it in processes that have worked in nature

for billions of years; and pay attention to these.

The solution, as it turns, out may be quite simple, to treat social frameworks as living

organisms, with the rules and standards becoming the DNA of the frameworks.

Simulate these frameworks using super computers for their fitness level, or their scorecard of

what works and what doesnt, in addition to what we prefer from alternatives.

We then apply genetic algorithms on this population of frameworks and witness

scientific democratic evolution in action. Social rules and standards that are inefficient,

irrelevant, corrupt in nature, and any other destructive aspects of society will fade out

and perish as they will have the effect of lowering the fitness score of frameworks, while

the holistic, cooperative, and synergistic rules and standards will continue to prevail

and evolve.

Would this approach be considered a centralized planned economy? I think not; I would call

it self-governance with tools to give communities a series of evidence based decisions, and

would be completely bottom-up, decentralized-driven-decisions guided by continues

feedback of all individuals to form the fitness landscape where these frameworks will evolve

in.

This social cybernation project would continue to advance as the resolution and

accuracy of framework simulation would continue to improve. It will be one of the

greatest endeavors humanity has ever undertaken; but the rewards will be ever lasting and

will enable the continuous progression of the human species.

The Zemerge Project

(a Zeitgeist Movement inspired Project)

http://zemerge.com

The Venus ProjectFrequently Asked Questions From Over 25 Years

Source Venus Project FAQ

[]


5/17

Page 5 of 17

3. Why do you feel that an approach as revolutionary as The Venus Project is necessary?

Our current system is not capable of providing a high standard of living for everyone, nor can it ensure the

protection of the environment because the major motive is profit.

Businesses aren't entirely to blame; they are forced to operate this way in order to retain the competitive edge.

Additionally, with the advent of automation, cybernation, and artificial intelligence, there will be an ever-increasing replacement of people by automated systems.

As a result, fewer people will be able to purchase goods and services even though our capability to produce an

abundance will continue to exist.

This is well-documented in Jeremy Rifkin's new book The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor

Force and the Dawn of the Post-market Era (Putnam, 1995).

The Venus Project offers a fresh approach that reverses the negative aspects experienced in our current

applications of automation and artificial intelligence. This project eliminates the disastrous consequences that

such

approaches can have on our society, i.e. the displacement of millions of workers, skilled and unskilled alike.

[]

Essay

The Future and Beyond

By Jacque Fresco

Jacque Fresco

Beyond Utopia


6/17

Page 6 of 17

Source: http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/essay

With the advent of future developments in science and technology, we will assign more and

more decision making to machines. At present this is evident in military systems in which

electronic sensors maintain the ideal flight characteristics in advanced aircraft. The capacities

of computers today exceed five hundred trillion bits of information per second.

The complexity of today's civilization is far too complex for human systems to manage

without the assistance of electronic computers. Computers of today are relatively primitive

compared to those that will evolve in the future.

Eventually the management of social systems will call for require electronic sensors

interconnected with all phases of the social sequences thus eliminating the need for

politics.

Today modern industrial plants have built in automatic inventory systems, which order

materials such as bearings and other mechanical replacements well in advance.

We believe it is now possible to achieve a society where people would be able to live longer,

healthier, and more meaningful productive lives. In such a society, the measure of success

would be based upon the fulfillment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of

wealth, property, and power.

Although many of the concepts presented here may appear as unattainable goals, all of

the ideas are based upon known scientific principles. It is not my purpose to write an

article that would be acceptable to people this is not the concern of science.

The social direction being proposed here has no parallel in history with any other previous

political ideology or economic strategy. Establishing the parameters of this new civilization

will require transcending many of the traditions, values, and methods of the past. The future

will evolve its own new paradigms, appropriate to each successive phase of human and

technological development.

Throughout the history of civilization few national leaders or politicians have ever proposed a

comprehensive plan to improve the lives of all people under their jurisdiction.

Although such individuals as Plato, Edward Bellamy, H.G. Wells, Karl Marx, and

Howard Scott all made some attempts to present a new civilization, the established

social order considered them impractical dreamers with Utopian designs that ran

contrary to the innate elements of human nature.

Arrayed against these social pioneers was a formidable status quo composed of vested

interests that were comfortable with the way things were, and a populace at large that, out of

years of indoctrination and conditioning, wanted no radical changes. These were the millions

of unappointed guardians of the status quo. The outlook and philosophy of the leaders were

consistent with their positions of differential advantage.


7/17

Page 7 of 17

In 1898, Edward Bellamy wrote the book Looking Backward. He conceived of an ideal

egalitarian social system with many advanced ideas for its time. This bestseller

generated a great deal of interest, and many people inquired as to how this type of

cooperative Utopian society could be brought about. But Bellamy replied that he was

just a writer and did not know how to create such a society.

The proposals he presented, and those of Plato's Republic, the writings of Karl Marx, H. G.

Wells in his book The Shape of Things to Come, and many others all represent attempts to

find workable solutions to the many problems that earlier civilizations were unable to resolve.

There is little doubt that at the time of Bellamy's books the social conditions were

abominable, which made the Utopian ideal extremely appealing.

What appears to be lacking in most of these concepts, however, has been an overall plan

and the necessary methods for a transitional system to enable the idea to become a

reality.

Most of the early visions of a better world did not allow for changes in either technology orhuman values, tending to arrest innovative efforts. Additionally, all have lacked a

comprehensive set of blueprints, models, and a methodology for implementation. Finally,

they lacked competent individuals to bring about such a transition.

The answers do not lie in debate or philosophical discussion of values, but rather inmethodology. Thus what is needed is an operational definition of a better world, which is as

follows: To constantly maximize existing and future technologies with the sole purpose

of enhancing all human life and protecting the environment

Old styled Technocracy is still active

Today we have developed the necessary technology to surpass the fondest hopes and dreams

of any social innovators of the past. The fact that previous attempts at social change have

failed is no justification for us to stop trying.

The real danger lies in complacence. The only limitations to the future of humankind

are those that we impose upon ourselves. It is now possible to relieve humanity of manyof its unresolved problems through the humane application of technology.


8/17

Page 8 of 17

Many years ago an attempt was made in the U. S. to understand a social and economic

system different from our own. A film called "The March of Time" had this to say about

Soviet Communism: "We believe that the American free-enterprise system will function

better than the collective system. However, we wish you the best of luck on your new and

unusual social experiment."

The failure of communism to provide for human needs and to enrich the lives of its citizens

is not unlike our own failures. Both failure and success are inherent in the on-going

experiment that is social evolution. In all established social systems it is necessary to devise

different approaches to improve the workings of the system.

Science is replete with examples of experiments that have failed, as well as those that have

been successful. In the development of the airplane, for example, there were thousands of

failures before the first workable model was produced.

[]

An inscription on one of our government buildings reads as follows: "Where there is no

vision, the people perish." Attaining visions requires change. The major reason for resisting

change is that it tends to threaten the established interests. Actually, the fear of social change

is somewhat unfounded when we consider that the entire history of civilization has been, in a

sense, an experiment.

[]

The future does not depend on our present-day beliefs or social customs, but will continue to

evolve a set of values unique to its own time. There are no "Utopias." The very notion of

"Utopia" is static. However, the survival of any social system ultimately depends upon its

ability to allow for appropriate change to improve society as a whole. The paths that we

choose will ultimately determine whether or not there is intelligent life on earth.

New Frontiers of Social Change

It has often been observed that common crises create common bonds. While people seekadvantage during the times of prosperity, shared suffering tends to draw people closer

together. We have seen this behavior repeated time and time again throughout the centuries,

during times of flood, famine, fire, or other natural disasters. Once the threat is resolved,

however, scarcity patterns once again begin to steer people back to their behaviors of seekingindividual advantage.

Sensationalist motion pictures such as Independence Day depict a world united for the

purpose of repelling an invasion by a hostile alien culture. Indeed, it seems that the only force

that would mobilize the world in a unified direction would be one that poses a common

threat, such as a colossal meteor hurling towards the earth, or some other major catastrophic

event.

If such an event were to occur, all border disputes would become irrelevant in the face of

impending disaster. While many would call upon divine intervention for salvation, all nations

would surely combine their efforts and call upon science and technology to deal with thiscommon threat.


9/17

Page 9 of 17

Bankers, lawyers, businessmen, and politicians would all be bypassed. Every resource would

be harnessed and mobilized, without any concern for monetary cost or profit. Under this kind

of threatening condition, most people realize where the key to their survival lies.

For example, during the Second World War, it was the collective mobilization of both

human and material resources that lead to a successful resolution for the U.S. and its allies.

As the amount of scientific information grows, nations and people are coming to realize

that even in today's divided world there are, in fact, many common threats that

transcend national boundaries.

These include overpopulation, energy shortages, pollution, water shortages, economic

catastrophe, the spread of uncontrollable disease and so forth. However, faced even with

threats of this magnitude, which are common to all nations, the direction of human action will

not be altered so long as powerful nations are able to maintain control of the limited resources

available.

Although many people, publications, and multi-media presentations portray various aspects

of the future and paint spectacular pictures of the developments to come in such areas as

transportation, housing, and medicine, they ignore the fact that in a monetary-based economy

the full benefits of these developments continue to be available to a relative few. What is not

touched upon is how these new technologies of the future can be used to organize societiesand economies efficiently and equitably, without the necessity of uniformity, so that everyone

would benefit from them. The few think tanks devoted to brainstorming newer

approaches to bring social organization up to speed with today's technological

capabilities do not deal with social change as a global systems plan.

Neither are there any overall social plans in government or industry to totally eliminate the

negative effects of the displacement of people by machines, nor does there seem to be any

genuine concern to do so. Many people believe that in the event of any social breakdown the

government will bring about the necessary changes for their survival.

This is highly improbable. In the event of such a breakdown the existing government would

most likely declare a state of emergency in an attempt to prevent total chaos. It would then

institute measures that may address immediate problems, at the same time attempting to

preserve existing institutions and power structures, even though these may be a chief

contributing factor to the problems.

Many people throughout history have taken politicians to task for actions that have not been

entirely in society's best interest. The reasons for this become clearer when one realizes that

even in modern democracies, these leaders do not benefit the lives of the average person.

Rather, they maintain the preferential positions of much of the established order.

There are growing indications of awareness on the part of people in many areas of the world

that events have gone beyond the control of their political leaders. Everywhere we see

political figures and parties come and go, political strategies adopted and discarded for their

inability to satisfy the demands of one faction or another.


10/17

Page 10 of 17

The reason that we do not suggest writing your congressman, or any number of governmental

agencies, is that they lack the necessary knowledge to deal with our problems. Their focus is

to preserve existing systems, not to change them. It appears that there are few within present-

day societies who want to phase themselves out.

In modern industrial societies the cause of inaction lies within the cumbersome politicalprocess itself, an anachronism in an era when most decisions can be made on any

important issue in a split second by the objective entry of relevant data into computers.

The prime conditions that would really effect social change will come about when conditions

have deteriorated to such an extent that governments, politicians, and social institutions no

longer have the support and confidence of the people.

What once worked is acknowledged to be no longer relevant. If the public were better

informed, only then would it be possible to introduce a new and improved social

arrangement.

[]

True social change is not brought about by men and women of reason and good will on a

personal level. The notion that one can sit and talk to individuals and alter their values is

highly improbable. If the person one is talking to does not have the fundamental knowledge

of the operation of scientific principles and the processes of natural laws, it is difficult for

them to understand how the pieces fit together on a holistic level.

The solutions to our problems will not come about through the application of reason or logic.

Unfortunately, at present we do not live in a reasonable or logical world. There appears to be

no historical record of any established society's leader who deliberately and comprehensively

redesigned a culture to fit the changing times. While there is no question that political

leaders, to a limited extent, modify some modes of behavior, the real factors responsible for

social change are brought about by bio-social pressures, which are inherent in all social

systems. Change is brought about by natural or economic occurrences that adversely affect

the immediate circumstances of large numbers of people.


11/17

Page 11 of 17

[]

Technocracy Inc circa 1930s

Unfortunately, the world's outmoded social, political, and international order is no longer

appropriate to these times. These obsolete social institutions are unable to grasp the

significance of innovative technology to achieve the greatest good for all people, and to

overcome the inequities forced upon so many.

Competition and scarcity have caused an atmosphere of jealousy and mistrust to develop

between individuals and nations. The concepts of proprietary rights, intellectual property,

copyrights, and patents manifested in corporate entities and in the sovereignty of nations,

preclude the free exchange of information that is necessary to meet global challenges. The

European Union represents an attempt to bridge the present with the future, but it falls far

short in that it relies on the crutch of the monetary system.

[]

However, it is not enough to point out the limiting factors that may threaten the survivability

of all nations. The challenge that all cultures will encounter in this technological age - some

more than others - is that of providing a smoother transition, which would introduce a more

appropriate way of thinking about ourselves, the environment and the management of human

affairs.

The ultimate survival of the human species depends upon planning on a global scale and to

cooperatively seek out new alternatives with a relative orientation for improved social

arrangements. If humankind is to achieve mutual prosperity, universal access to resources is

essential.

Along with the introduction of new paradigms towards human and environmental

concern, there must be a methodology for making this a reality. If these ends are to be

achieved, the monetary system must eventually be surpassed by a world resource-based

economy. In order to effectively and economically utilize resources, the necessary

cybernated and computerized technology could eventually be applied to ensure a higher

standard of living for everyone.


12/17

Page 12 of 17

With the intelligent and humane application of science and technology, the nations of

the world could guide and shape the future for the preservation of the environment and

humankind.

What is needed to attain a global society is a practical and internationally acceptable

comprehensive blueprint. Also needed is an international planning council capable oftranslating the blueprint and the advantages that would be gained through world unification.

This proposal could be presented in the vernacular, in a way that non-technical people can

easily understand.

In actuality, no one should make decisions as to how this blueprint will be designed. It must

be based on the carrying capacity of our planet, its resources, human needs and the like. In

order to sustain our civilization we must coordinate advanced technology and available

resources in a total, humane, global systems approach.

There is no doubt that many of the professions that are familiar to us today will eventually be

phased out. With the rate of change now taking place, a vast array of obsolete occupationswill disappear more rapidly and more extensively than at any other time in history.

In a society that applies a systems approach, these professions will be replaced by

interdisciplinary teams the systems analysts, computer programmers, operation

researchers, and those who link the world together in vast communications networks

that are assisted by high-speed digital computers.

They will eventually lead us to large-scale computer-based methods of social operation.

Social operations are far too complex today for any elected politicians to handle.

It appears that most politicians do not give serious attention to this and other problems. Only

in times of war or national emergencies do we call upon and assemble interdisciplinary teams

to help find workable solutions to varying social problems. If we apply the same efforts of

scientific mobilization as we do during a war, large-scale beneficial effects can be achieved

in a relatively short time.

This could readily be accomplished by utilizing many of our universities, training

facilities, and staff to best determine possible alternative methods to solving these

problems. This could eventually help us to define the possible transitional parameters

for the future of a sustainable global civilization.

The process of social change must allow for changing conditions that would continuously

update the design parameters and allow for the infusion of new technologies into emerging

cultures. Design teams utilizing socially integrated computers could automatically be

informed of new developments. As this process is continuously updated, it would generate a

more appropriate code of conduct. By appropriate conduct we mean the necessary procedures

to accomplish a given task.

All the limitations imposed upon us by our present-day monetary system could be

surpassed by adopting a global consensus for a worldwide resource-based economy, in

which all the planetary resources are viewed and treated as the common heritage of all

the earth's inhabitants. In this manner, the earth and our technological procedures


13/17

Page 13 of 17

could provide us with a limitless supply of material goods and services without the

creation of debt or taxation whatsoever.

The Obsolete Monetary System

Although skillful advertisers lead us to believe otherwise, in today's monetary-basedeconomies, whenever new technology is introduced, the human consequences are of little

concern to those introducing the technology - except, of course, as customers. In a monetary-

based system, the major concerns of industry are profit, maintaining a competitive edge, and

watching the bottom line, rather than the wellbeing of humanity.

[]

What industry seeks to do is improve the competitive edge to increase the profit margin for

their shareholders. It does not serve the interest of a monetary based society to engage in the

production of goods and services to enhance the lives of people as a goal. With rising public

concern regarding the greenhouse effect, acid rain, polluted air and water, etc. somecompanies are also beginning to realize that for sustained market presence it is in their best

interest to heed social and environmental concerns.

While such trends are commendable, they are insufficient as a method of solving the overall

problems of waste, environmental degradation and unnecessary human suffering.

The monetary system has been a useful, but interim tool, it came into being as a means of

placing a value on scarce objects and labor. The monetary system of course replaced the

barter system, which involved direct trading of objects and labor.

However, just as there was no universal-bartering standard in the past, there is no global

monetary system today. Individuals and groups, now as in the past, however, still need to

exchange objects and labor for today's goods and services. The unequal distribution of

skills, resources and materials throughout the world necessitates global trade.

Until the last few decades, the monetary system functioned to a degree.

The global population of three billion was not over consuming world resources and energy,

global warming was not evident, and air and water pollution were only recognized by a

relative few.

The start of the 21st century however finds global population at an exponentially risingsix billion, with resources and energy supplies dwindling, global warming a reality, and

pollution evident worldwide. []


14/17

Page 14 of 17

The following is a Q&A, which is answered directly by Jacque Fresco

(unless otherwise noted).

http://www.tzmnz.com/thevenusprojectfaq.htm

[]

How does The Venus Project compare with Communism?

Communism used money and labor, had social stratification, and elected officials to maintain

the communists' traditions.

Most importantly, Communism did not eliminate SCARCITY nor did they have a blueprint

or the methods for the production of abundance. Machine production rather than labor will

dominate the future. Perhaps through no fault of their own, they also had to maintain huge

military expenditures to protect themselves from invasion of fascistic and capitalisticinstitutions.

Communism being similar to a resource-based economy or The Venus Project is an

erroneous concept.

Communism has money, banks, armies, police, prisons, charismatic personalities, social

stratification, and is managed by appointed leaders. The Venus Project's aim is to

surpass the need for the use of money. Police, prisons and the military would no longer

be necessary when goods, services, healthcare, and education are available to all people.

The Venus Project would replace politicians with a cybernated society in which all of

the physical entities are managed and operated by computerized systems. The only

region that the computers do not operate or manage is the surveillance of human

beings.

This would be completely unnecessary and considered socially offensive. A society that uses

technology without human concern has no basis of survival. Communism has no blueprint or

methodology to carry out their ideals and along with capitalism, fascism, and socialism, will

ultimately go down in history as failed social experiments.


15/17

Page 15 of 17

Communism is a political system managed by a form of ideology, which does not necessarily

relate to human or environmental needs.

Communism uses money, banks, armies, police, prisons, charismatic personalities,

social stratification, and is managed by appointed leaders and uses indoctrination. The

Venus Project's aim is to surpass the need for the use of money.

Police, prisons, banking, advertising, stockbrokers, military, and government would no longer

be necessary when goods, services, healthcare, and education are available to all people.

The Venus Project would replace politicians with a cybernated society in which all of

the physical entities would as quickly as possible be managed and operated by

computerized systems.

The only region that the computers do not operate or manage is the surveillance of human

beings. This would be completely unnecessary and considered socially offensive. A society

that uses technology without human concern has no basis of survival.

Communism has no blueprint or methodology to carry out their ideals and along with

capitalism, fascism, and socialism will ultimately go down in history as failed social

experiments. One of Communism's concerns is the condition of labor and the working class.

The Venus Project's major concerns are producing products with limited labor and

eventually eliminating labor and at the same time giving people all the amenities of a

prosperous, high energy society.

It is not our aim to produce a society that does nothing but enjoy leisure time. Instead

people will be introduced to limitless opportunities to explore, create, participate, and

learn.

The Venus Project offers science and technology in the service of humankind on a global

scale and eventually helps to eliminate all the artificial boundaries that separate people.

The system uses no money and makes goods and services available without a price tag, debt,

barter, or servitude of any kind.

If we use our technology intelligently, we can create an abundance of goods and services for

the entire planet. We use machines and automation to produce and distribute all manufacturedproducts, which will be available at distribution centers to everyone. The purpose of this high

technology is to free people so they can pursue their own interests and fulfillments.

We would surpass the need for human participation in the production of goods and

services. There is no taxation or obligation of any kind. We advocate no government by

human systems. They have always proved inadequate. Computerized systems and

cybernetics would be applied to the social system and must comply with the carrying

capacity of our global resources.

The machines' main purpose is for the manufacturing and distribution of goods and

services while maintaining a clean environment with service to all and profits to none.When people have access to resources, most crimes will disappear.


16/17

Page 16 of 17

The need for police, military, and prisons will eventually vanish with it. Of course this will

coincide with the necessary changes in education. I hope this helps to clarify some points. We

realize this is a simplified description of how it differs from communism.

Will there be a government?

As to the need for government, only during the transition from a monetary based

society to a cybernated high-technological resource based economy of common heritage

would it be necessary to utilize the services of systems analysts, engineers, computer

programmers, etc.

They will not dictate the policies or have any more advantage than other people. Their job

will be to carry out the restoration of the environment to near natural conditions as possible

on land and in the sea.

They will also economically layout the most efficient way to manage transportation,

agriculture, city planning, and production. This too is always in the process of modification

and updating to fit the needs of an ever-changing civilization. There are no final frontiers.

What is The Venus Project going to do with people of aberrant behavior?

Aberrant behavior is produced by aberrant social conditions, malnutrition, minimum wage,

lack of motivation, poor role models, and lack of relevant education.

People always reflect the influences of environment.

Even the wealthiest people today suffer from intellectual poverty.

They too commit crimes such as exploitation of the environment and other human

beings. We do not consider gambling casinos offensive today as a criminal institution,

but in the future they will certainly be looked upon as part of our aberrant society along

with thousands of other aberrant patterns we consider right and normal today.

Do you advocate killing anyone people with aberrant behavior?

By "mentally unstable" or "aberrant people" do you mean those of GE who are some of thebiggest polluters of the environment and knowingly exposed their workers to carcinogens that

caused their deaths, or those that manipulate money for profit without contributing to the well

being of people's lives, or those who lend money for an automobile for example and if the

person cannot pay off the last payment they do not take a tire and the steering wheel

equivalent to the payment, they take the whole car?

Or perhaps you may mean judges who put people in jail for life for killing over resources, yet

the leaders of nations bomb and kill entire cities and countries for resources and to secure

markets and then put statues in parks to honor the ones who carry out this procedure?

There would have to be an awful lot of killing going on if a saner society wanted to rid itselfof "unstable" or "aberrant" behavior. No, we do not advocate killing anyone.


17/17

Page 17 of 17

We think that this system is like a cancer on a cat that is eating its host and it will do

away with itself in time. The mere march of events of technology will eventually do away

with jobs that enable people to buy the goods turned out, and new social designs will have to

emerge. We feel that at that time a military dictatorship will most likely occur. We would like

to introduce the concepts of a resource-based economy to the public so they will understand

that there are other possible alternatives.

Monotonous and dangerous jobs will inevitably be done away with by the advance of

technology. People in a resource-based economy will be given the opportunity to study,

travel, work to help others, design, create, etc. - or work in the arts or sciences - if they desire.

I find it so sad when people ask, "What will people do?". Their brains have been so flattened

that they have no other options in their lives other than a job and in most instances it is one

that they do not like.

Children, when they are young, are curious about everything and if nurtured they

could have a much greater range of interests and abilities. This culture does awonderful job of limiting peoples' interests, opportunities, and abilities, and it

conditions them to be lazy.

People are not born that way any more than they are born with bigotry, hatred, prejudice, or

particular values. We are aware that it is the environment that shapes people and if the cultureis not changed there will be little change in human behavior.

[]

Documents

Understanding Technocracy